On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

Richard Clark plaatste dit op zijn scherm :
On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt
zijn bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de
aanwinstenknop van rf doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency.
Dit toont niet aan één of andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp
ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook en spiegels als argument. Omkerend
het argument, als u een volledige met maat antenne voor die band had,
zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX zou u
slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere
efficiency te compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor
technisch uitgeput wie eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller
dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart
dat dit niet een goedkoop schot, zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten
welk eind van de soldeerbout om één van beiden op te nemen.

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

rofl
Mark


Na rijp beraad schreef Gert-Jan Dam PG0G :
Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt zijn
bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de aanwinstenknop van rf
doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency. Dit toont niet aan één of
andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook
en spiegels als argument. Omkerend het argument, als u een volledige met maat
antenne voor die band had, zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat
bakkebaard nodig hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX
zou u slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere efficiency te
compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor technisch uitgeput wie
eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope
oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart dat dit niet een goedkoop schot,
zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten welk eind van de soldeerbout om één
van beiden op te nemen.

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben om
uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma

rofl
Mark

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:46:03 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt
zijn bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de
aanwinstenknop van rf doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency.
Dit toont niet aan één of andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp
ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook en spiegels als argument. Omkerend
het argument, als u een volledige met maat antenne voor die band had,
zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX zou u
slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere
efficiency te compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor
technisch uitgeput wie eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller
dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart
dat dit niet een goedkoop schot, zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten
welk eind van de soldeerbout om één van beiden op te nemen.

Hi OM,

Één of andere goede vertaling, slecht wat. Wat kwamen uit zeer goed
zelfs daarna twee vertalingen.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Richard Clark op mijn schermpje
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:46:03 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G

Één of andere goede vertaling, slecht wat. Wat kwamen uit zeer goed
zelfs daarna twee vertalingen.

Ik heb een willekeurig stuk vertaald. Dit kwam eruit en het is gewoon
onleesbaar.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

RC (KB7QHC),

Spoken (written) like a True Amateur, and precicly why most SWLs
ignore what is written in reply to SWL 'type' Antennas questions
by HAMs.

Most SWLs work to get the best signal (cleanest signal and lowest
noise) they can to be able to listen to what they what to hear.

The HAM would hardly ever consider a 'random' wire Antenna;
but to the SWL'er the "Random" Wire Antenna 'concept' is a
natural to fill their available space. Power handling, gain
and antenna design characteristics are the focus of the HAM.

As far as the AM/MW Loop Antenna's are concerned. For the AM/MW
DX'er these Antenna's perform the best for their size and the
available space that the average Broadcast Listener (BCL) has
for these Medium Wave Band. The SWL'er wants to hear any Radio
Station out there from any direction.

The 'focus' of the SWL'er is simpy different then the Amateur;
and the majority of SWL'ers are Program Listeners who seldom
listen to the HAM Bands.

iane ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Richard Clark wrote in message
= = = . ..
On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC